So a guy who didn't fail a drug test and is simply going to court to defend himself a clown

Exactly, I hope Leogrande wins his case for the same reason I wanted Landis to win his. This crusade against dopers and attitude of winning at all costs is the wrong way to go. If WADA/USADA/StolenUnderground is so sure that he doped, get some real evidence through legit channels, build a strong case, and get it over with. This double secret hearsay and bending of rules when convenient does not help the credibility of the doping controllers. WADA needs to learn to play (and win) within the bounds of their own rules, because what's going on now is ridiculous.

i dont get why people are taking a he said she said story and taking it as evidence. are people really that dumb? i thought there needed to be evidence to have a case. there was a negative test.....wheres the case? you have some ridiculous woman ranting and raving to anyone who will listen. i cant believe usada is even considering building a case around that. then you have lil matt or whatever he calls himself......convicted of doping, suspended, served his sentence and when no one wants to hire him again he goes on to make a website to try and still get some attention. these people are the clowns. not the guy who has a negative test and idiotic people trying to run their mouths to get some attention. its all so ridiculous

But really, it's hysterical that people on this forum keep defending, or rather, keep giving the benefit of the doubt to all these "suspect" riders. It's starting to piss me off, actually.

Completely agree. I could add so much more as well but I just wanted to throw the DeCanio "announcement" out there to see what others thought.

I know a couple of US domestic pros & it seems to me that the guys in the peloton "think" they know who is on the sauce & who is clean. You also know that those guys probably aren't afraid of sharing their knowledge with USADA. I ain't saying it's right or wrong - it's just the way it is. A lot of people really want to see things cleaned up around here & that can only be a good thing, right?

Exactly, I hope Leogrande wins his case for the same reason I wanted Landis to win his. This crusade against dopers and attitude of winning at all costs is the wrong way to go. If WADA/USADA/StolenUnderground is so sure that he doped, get some real evidence through legit channels, build a strong case, and get it over with. This double secret hearsay and bending of rules when convenient does not help the credibility of the doping controllers. WADA needs to learn to play (and win) within the bounds of their own rules, because what's going on now is ridiculous.

So the right way to go is just deny doping happens? Let doping controls be run by chamois-sniffing fanboys?

Sorry, Landis doped, in a court of experts, he lost, not even he can deny his tests came back 11:1 every single time, and mass isotope testing is solid. But like most doping defenders, you should learn more, as WADA had little to do with the Landis affair. While everyone says WADA needs to follow it's own rules, you may find that they do, but the UCI and the Tour don't-these are different institutions, don't confuse them. Landis case is nothing like this. You know who else doesn't follow rules? dopers.

Doping tests can be beat easily, there are many examples of admitted dopers who never tested positive. It's nice that a technicality got ~60 riders off from the OP scandal, but that still doesn't hide the fact that doping is rampant and the tours have been a joke since the late 90s.

and how many times do you guys need to defend these heros only to have them admit they doped down the road? I got tired after Hamilton, Ullrich, Basso, Pantani..

I guarantee that in 2008, Floyd Landis will do a 180 and admit his doping and come out as a crusader for clean racing, it's the only PR option he has.

I still think a clean sweep is the only option, but with Riis and Bruyneel still anywhere near a peloton, there are always going to be questions. 2008 is already a write-off.

Docray, all excellent points, but I'm not advocating that we ignore the issue. I'm hoping that WADA/USADA and all their associated labs start playing within the rules, it makes for a better environment for catching and convicting offenders overall. True, dopers are not playing within the rules, but those of us who are clean do not need to drop to their level to catch them. On top of that, these governing bodies need to stop making it so easy for them to blow holes in all their cases.

In Leogrande's specific case, you may "know" in your mind that he's a doper, but his A sample came back negative... by their own rules they're not allowed to test his B sample. But just because you "know" he doped, doesn't mean you can throw that rule out the window and test his B sample anyway. It means your methodology and test is flawed and you need to go back and work on it so you can catch the guy.

We can all agree that doping tests are not good enough, then why waste time chasing people on a "feeling" and circumstantial evidence when that time and money could be better spent on improving the controls? WADA runs around with this pompous attitude that their tests are perfect and they need to win at all costs, that is simply not the way to do it. Leogrande slipped through the cracks this time, tighten up your protocol, improve your tests, catch him the next time around. If doping is as rampant and as easy to get away with as you believe, why are we still using the same tired old methods to catching them? With every testing method that is created, eventually someone will figure out a way around it, that's just the nature of things. Instead of sitting around crying how not fair it is, do something about it and continiously evolve the tests! But even without going that far and redesigning all the tests tomorrow, a lot can be done to improve the entire process today, there was a great letter in Cyclingnews back when the whole Landis thing broke about simple things WADA could do to not further trample the rights of the riders and guarantee a better result all together, while not adding adding tremendous cost to testing.

A clean sweep of cycling is not the answer either, it's incredibly irrational and simply not fair. The problem is that the two sides that make the most noise are either the fanboys who believe anything and the people running on pure vindictive emotion where if you're not with them in the mob, you're against them. The current system is flawed, but no one wants to admit it and do something about it, they seem perfectly content to go down with this massive train wreck that is our current doping control system by cherry picking policies and procedures to follow. I am perfectly fine with letting a few dopers slip through the cracks if that means the methods to catch these dopers get stronger so we catch more dopers in the future.

While everyone says WADA needs to follow it's own rules, you may find that they do, but the UCI and the Tour don't-these are different institutions, don't confuse them. Landis case is nothing like this. You know who else doesn't follow rules? dopers.

Doping tests can be beat easily, there are many examples of admitted dopers who never tested positive. It's nice that a technicality got ~60 riders off from the OP scandal, but that still doesn't hide the fact that doping is rampant and the tours have been a joke since the late 90s.

So, Doc:

If Leogrande passed the tests administered by WADA/UCI/USOC/USAC/whoever, is he innocent or guilty, in your mind?

Test vs. rumor? If he passes the test, but people say he's on the juice, is he guilty through words alone?

I'm not trying to bait you. I know that you're a passionate individual and I want to hear what you have to say on this issue.

have you ever been investigated by usada? do you know that if they go on to test a B sample then the rider has to pay thousands to go and have a doctor oversee the testing. why should someone who has a negative A and ONE person saying he admitted doping to them just roll over and pay money out of their own pocket for a bullshit case. obviously you dont know all the details. its people like you who see things the way they are written in VN and all that other bullshit and know absolutely no details about it that are making this even more ridiculous.

I hate to say it, but I feel there is often a bizarre thing that often happens when a US pro gets caught in that a surprising number of fans just cannot accept that their hero doped. Look at Hamilton and Landis. Both still having support despite a huge amount of evidence of guilt. This may happen too in other countries, but it seems most obvious in the US. When
I compare it against, say, the German reaction to Ulrich, I feel that many US bike fans must be blinded by their hero worship.

have you ever been investigated by usada? do you know that if they go on to test a B sample then the rider has to pay thousands to go and have a doctor oversee the testing. why should someone who has a negative A and ONE person saying he admitted doping to them just roll over and pay money out of their own pocket for a bullshit case. obviously you dont know all the details. its people like you who see things the way they are written in VN and all that other bullshit and know absolutely no details about it that are making this even more ridiculous.

No I have never been pursued by USADA.
No I don't buy verbatum what is printed on news pages about events which i don't have all the facts as demonstrated by my saying "there is far more to this than we know".

I have not made any comment about the rider in question or whether they're guilty or not, I merely drew a parallel to some recent history within the sport and merely passed comment on the events that have taken place.

As for the tape of some women claiming to have been told that by the rider that they doped, it's worthless, and potentially malicous, as already discussed.

This whole thing does catch my interest and raises a couple of questions in my mind:
1) It is also costing the USADA a fair chunck of money too why chase someone if there hasn't been something to perk their interest.
2) Why spend the money on a lawsuit that you aren't willing to put your name to, its likely to cost you far more than a doctor would for a few hours. Why not hold a press conference to the effect of asking USADA for an explanation why they are doing this and how can I help prove that there has been no doping activity.

That's it in a nutshell. Thank you DocRay for putting it in some sort of perspective. TTTyler...what's your story, guy? Your tone (and post count) reeks of naiveness. Don't assume the people reading these forums are as clueless as you make them out to be.

But "he said she said" for self promotion like in the case of Matt Decaino...

Again, I have no problem with dopers getting the boot.

But I do have a problem with the railroading of athletes that happens now.

We're in a climate that is very much like the witch hunts of old.

Not saying that we don't have witches!

But now it's guilty by accusation and much like the witch hunts of old...

And yes, mistakes can be made with samples... Even the guy that made the testing equipement in the Landis case said they got it wrong. Running the radio Iso test was a logical next step, but there have been a couple of cases where things simply are not handled correctly.

I want the dopers gone.

But I want em gone based on good solid evidence and after due process...

"The war on doping" seems to have whipped people into a frenzy and basic rights are getting tossed out the window... That's just not right.

I don't think any of you would like being fired because a co worker (or anyone else for that matter) said something about you... Now if they find that what was said was true and is a violation of rules, See ya. But if there's no rule against it, or if you didn't really do it in the first place, you should be fine.

Either way, you and your family shouldn't go hungry while people are trying to figure out what happened.

Anti doping is good. losing basic rights during due process is pretty much never good.

My point is that People shouldn't be treated differently based on their profession.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum